| Home | News | Find a Doctor | Ask a Question | Free |
[quote]
[postedby]Originally Posted by hairman2[/postedby]
I know you believe that Dr Nigam can just snap his fingers and replicate a decade of research, experience and expertise in his own lab, but I personally think this seems very very unlikely.
[postedby]Originally Posted by jarjarbinx[/postedby][/quote]
Unfortunately I’m afraid you’re right. I doubt dr Nigam can replicate what Jahoda did, let alone improve it.
What do you base your theory on?
I think that there are a lot of articles saying he used dp cells.
But even if he used ds cells instead of dp cells why would that mean that things are going nowhere? If it’s ds cells that work then they can use ds cells. Why is it a big issue whether they used ds cells or dp cells?
Please provide a link to the actual study.
[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by jarjarbinx[/postedby]
James Bond you talk and assert a lot of stuff but some of the key things you say are absolutely, totally 100% incorrect. You said in a different thread that Collin Jahoda did not grow hair on his wife’s arm using Collin Jahoda’s hair cells, but Collin Jahoda did do exactly that. You are absolutely, totally 100% incorrect.[/quote]
There is a big difference between DP cells and DS cells. When I say that the implanted DP cells in Jahoda’s study did not result in hair growth, I am 100% factually correct.
It’s important to understand how the study was performed. The follicles were extracted using a punch. Then the end bulbs were amputated, and the epithelial tissue was scraped away. Then the DS portion was isolated from the DP portion. Then the implants were separated and placed into in culture medium. Thereafter, the DP and DS implants were implanted separately into the underside of the forearm. All DS implant sites grew hair. No DP implant sites grew hair.
If you don’t believe me, simply refer to the study.
[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by hairman2[/postedby]
James Bond, how can you deny that there is a fundamental difference between Aderans’ failure and what Jahoda has managed to do. Aderans publically admitted that they merely were able to rejuvenate hair follicles which had most recently been lost (i.e. the outer rim of the hair loss area).
Dr Jahoda on the other hand has managed to create whole new de-novo follicles. How is this not a fundamental difference? Sorry but I simply do not see this as a old car with different paint.[/quote]
Aderans’ initial work focused on creating whole new de-novo follicles through the use of implanted 3D matrices seeding with follicular cells. They eventually reached a dead end and focused on stimulation of existing follicles through cell injection. In short, they tried both approaches and failed.
I’m extremely disappointed in where this research as led so far, and I certainly didn’t plan this is where we would be in 2013. I agree with the above poster who said we are in the dark days of hair multiplication, but stem cell research is booming. Since one translates directly to the other, we will eventually see a stem cell cure for MPB. But I don’t expect for this to happen overnight.
[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by roger_that[/postedby]
James, I’m curious as to how you find yourself qualified to judge Dr. Jahoda as unqualified, lacking in “experience and skills” to do this kind of research?
What exactly are your qualifications to make that statement?
[/quote]
I’m glad you asked this question, and I answered it in my previous post by quoting Dr. Jahoda directly who said the same thing about himself.
Look, I believe he’s a bright researcher, but if you been around this as long as I have and begin to look beneath the covers, you will realize Jahoda’s research is progressing at a painfully slow rate. Watching this unfold can be a little aggravating at times.
But that’s not nearly as important as my emphasizing he has a specific skill set that only represents a part of what is required to bring this treatment to fruition. Read the interview I previously linked, and I believe you will understand where I’m coming from. This is less of a critique than simply pointing out the truth. He’s not our guy, but he might turn out to be a small part of the overall solution.
[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by jarjarbinx[/postedby]
http://www.baldnessbattlers.com/ptptransplant.htm
snip…
I could go on and on and on with more articles showing that you are wrong.
snip…
“Meet an incorrect fool named James Bond.” You see you are the only person saying the stupid sh!t that you are saying.[/quote]
Apparently you don’t realize that I am the person who wrote the text in the first link you posted. In fact, I built that entire website for a friend many years ago because I wanted to figure out how to build a website. OK, I don’t remember much about putting that there anymore. But if I remember properly, Bill was responsible for most of the content, and I was in charge of figuring out how to put it on the Internet. It was probably Bill who composed the text, and I just put it on the site.
I realize you are not happy with the things I am saying in this thread, and I apologize for that. But surely you must realize that you are trying to discredit me for something I never even said. You simply made an error in reading.
It’s not the end of the world. Hair multiplication will eventually bear fruit. But right now, things have taken a turn down. These things go in cycles, and eventually it will turn up again. Then you will have your hair back.
On another note, I believe you can access the old Transgender Jahoda study here (you can scroll down the page to read it all):
[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by jarjarbinx[/postedby]
I think that there are a lot of articles saying he used dp cells.
But even if he used ds cells instead of dp cells why would that mean that things are going nowhere? If it’s ds cells that work then they can use ds cells. Why is it a big issue whether they used ds cells or dp cells?[/quote]
Here’s a greatly simplified explanation:
DP cells grow hair like crazy in mice, but they do not grow hair well in humans. So why even mess with DP cells in Jahoda’s latest study? That’s part of the reason I’m ticked off. Yes, I’m sure he had his reasons, and yes he knows a million times more than I do about this field. But it seems to me he proved in 1999 that DS cells from the lower stem cell pool are the superior cell type to use for human hair multiplication. Why not followup on his earlier research and compare both cell types using modern culturing techniques? It would have been a beautiful study and told us so much more without costing much, if any, more.
The promise of DS cells is, it only requires a few hundred of them to create a hair follicle once implanted into human scalp skin at the right location. Of course, the problem is, you have to get the cells to maintain their inductive ability when cultured (yes, it’s not just DP cells that have this problem). You also have to deliver these cells to the precise location in the scalp.
So what all these researchers have been doing who have failed is, they have picked the strongest cell types, cultured them, and then injected them into the scalp. First of all, they are not able to target the scalp location well. And second, the cells they inject have degraded when cultured.
The weakened cells are strong enough to grow hair in some people, but not strong enough to grow hair in others. So we get this inconsistency issue that causes the researchers to try to adjust the culture medium to make the injected cells stronger so that they’ll work in more people, but it seems, the science is just not advanced enough yet to keep the cells intact.
McElwee is currently working with DS cells, which is an excellent choice of cell types to work with. Let’s hope he knows something the others don’t when it comes to culturing these cells. I’m not very high on his research effort, but still, I remain hopeful.
So then you agree with me that while Aderans was trying to grow de-novo hair and failed, Jahoda has finally been the first to succeed in growing new hair?
That is what i consider “a breakthrough”.
[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by James Bond[/postedby]
Aderans’ initial work focused on creating whole new de-novo follicles through the use of implanted 3D matrices seeding with follicular cells. They eventually reached a dead end and focused on stimulation of existing follicles through cell injection. In short, they tried both approaches and failed.
[/quote]
I think you’re confusing the “clumping problem” (not really a problem) and “3D matrices” with 3D cell culture.
From my viewpoint, these are completely different things and shouldn’t be all confused and “clumped” together as you’re doing!
Tom Barrows was hired from BioAmide because that company pioneered the idea of using a “biodegradable matrix” – which later evolved into a so-called “scaffold” – to get the cells to cling together and perhaps form the beginnings of a follicle.
ARI then did some testing of that idea, but I don’t believe they ever made it the centerpiece of their trials. The Aderans clinical trials (and Ji Gami) were about culturing and injecting dissociated cells.
What Jahoda and Christiano have done in this study is somehting completely different. They’re using a 3D culture technique but the idea isn’t so much tissue engineering, as it is to trick the cells into behaving like they’re still in vivo, so they continue to express their natural inborn complement of genes (transcriptional/translational studies prove that 22% of the relevant genes are being preserved, versus a much lower number for cells NOT cultured using the 3D technique).
This has an effect on the inductivity or trichogenicity of the cells. The greater percentage of “in vivo” genes expressed, the greater the ability to induce de novo hair follicles.
When can we expect news from McElwee and do you have a link to his work?
[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by jarjarbinx[/postedby]
I think that there are a lot of articles saying he used dp cells.
But even if he used ds cells instead of dp cells why would that mean that things are going nowhere? If it’s ds cells that work then they can use ds cells. Why is it a big issue whether they used ds cells or dp cells?
[postedby]Originally Posted by James Bond[/postedby]
Here’s a greatly simplified explanation:
DP cells grow hair like crazy in mice, but they do not grow hair well in humans. So why even mess with DP cells in Jahoda’s latest study? That’s part of the reason I’m ticked off. Yes, I’m sure he had his reasons, and yes he knows a million times more than I do about this field. But it seems to me he proved in 1999 that DS cells from the lower stem cell pool are the superior cell type to use for human hair multiplication. Why not followup on his earlier research and compare both cell types using modern culturing techniques? It would have been a beautiful study and told us so much more without costing much, if any, more.
The promise of DS cells is, it only requires a few hundred of them to create a hair follicle once implanted into human scalp skin at the right location. Of course, the problem is, you have to get the cells to maintain their inductive ability when cultured (yes, it’s not just DP cells that have this problem). You also have to deliver these cells to the precise location in the scalp.
So what all these researchers have been doing who have failed is, they have picked the strongest cell types, cultured them, and then injected them into the scalp. First of all, they are not able to target the scalp location well. And second, the cells they inject have degraded when cultured.
The weakened cells are strong enough to grow hair in some people, but not strong enough to grow hair in others. So we get this inconsistency issue that causes the researchers to try to adjust the culture medium to make the injected cells stronger so that they’ll work in more people, but it seems, the science is just not advanced enough yet to keep the cells intact.
McElwee is currently working with DS cells, which is an excellent choice of cell types to work with. Let’s hope he knows something the others don’t when it comes to culturing these cells. I’m not very high on his research effort, but still, I remain hopeful.[/quote]
James Bond,
Are there ways to increase the inductivity of ds cells? Are we (soon) expecting news regards to increasing the inductivity of ds cells?
Can we simply use the same techniques to sustain inductivity in ds cells that Jahoda and Christiano are working on for dp cells? I know it isn’t perfect yet (Jahoda and Christiano can only get 22% of genes to express with their new techniques) but it might be sufficient if we only cultured the cells for a day or two. And I do have an idea that might make it possible for just a day or two of culturing to be sufficient. See Item #3.
What do you think about my idea for simply using more donors to increase the number of cells rather than using culturing to increase the number of cells? If we increase the number of donors (say use 10 different human donors for each bald person to be treated) that would give each bald person 10 times as many cells than if they only used their own cells. And we might be able to increase the number a little bit by doing some culturing for one or two days utilizing everything we know about protecting inductivity for those 1 or 2 days of culturing. I know that this means we would be putting the ds/dp cells of 10 different people into our scalps but I would only suggest this if I was SURE that these cells really are immune-privileged. What do you think?
[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by jarjarbinx[/postedby]
I think that there are a lot of articles saying he used dp cells.
But even if he used ds cells instead of dp cells why would that mean that things are going nowhere? If it’s ds cells that work then they can use ds cells. Why is it a big issue whether they used ds cells or dp cells?
[postedby]Originally Posted by James Bond[/postedby]
Here’s a greatly simplified explanation:
DP cells grow hair like crazy in mice, but they do not grow hair well in humans. So why even mess with DP cells in Jahoda’s latest study? That’s part of the reason I’m ticked off. Yes, I’m sure he had his reasons, and yes he knows a million times more than I do about this field. But it seems to me he proved in 1999 that DS cells from the lower stem cell pool are the superior cell type to use for human hair multiplication. Why not followup on his earlier research and compare both cell types using modern culturing techniques? It would have been a beautiful study and told us so much more without costing much, if any, more.
The promise of DS cells is, it only requires a few hundred of them to create a hair follicle once implanted into human scalp skin at the right location. Of course, the problem is, you have to get the cells to maintain their inductive ability when cultured (yes, it’s not just DP cells that have this problem). You also have to deliver these cells to the precise location in the scalp.
So what all these researchers have been doing who have failed is, they have picked the strongest cell types, cultured them, and then injected them into the scalp. First of all, they are not able to target the scalp location well. And second, the cells they inject have degraded when cultured.
The weakened cells are strong enough to grow hair in some people, but not strong enough to grow hair in others. So we get this inconsistency issue that causes the researchers to try to adjust the culture medium to make the injected cells stronger so that they’ll work in more people, but it seems, the science is just not advanced enough yet to keep the cells intact.
McElwee is currently working with DS cells, which is an excellent choice of cell types to work with. Let’s hope he knows something the others don’t when it comes to culturing these cells. I’m not very high on his research effort, but still, I remain hopeful.[/quote]
James, I read and listened to the link from the “AM” show on the Australian ABC network, with the Jahoda interview. I am well aware of what Jahoda said there because I posted that link here before you did.
Again you are deliberately taking Jahoda’s words out of context to support your inaccurate belief that Jahoda is not qualified to do this work.
You also have not answered Hairman’s question as to whether you consider Jahoda’s new study with Christiano, in which they’ve proven they can grow de novo follicles in human skin, a significant breakthrough.
You have completely ignored Hairman’s question by providing a lot of distracting facts and history which doesn’t concisely respond to the question being asked of you right now.
We don’t want a bunch of complicated history and anecdotes about McElwee, Sun, Lakver, Barrows, etc. With all due respect, all this name-dropping and fact-bombing is really not relevant to the issue.
Please just give us a “yes or no” answer. Is the new study by Jahoda and Christiano a breakthrough discovery, or not? Is it qualitatively different than what ARI had accomplished, or not? Yes or no, please. The issues are pretty clear-cut. We don’t need a dissertation about work done in 1999.
Again, in case you’ve forgotten Hairman’s question, Aderans pubilcly admitted that all they could do was rejuvenate existing miniaturized follicles. Yet the new Jahoda-Christiano study reports the first ever confirmed creation of neogenic human hair follicles in human skin.
Do you recognize the above as facts or not?
Also, you keep repeating that in the past, Jahoda was able to grow hair using dermal sheath (DS) cells, but he was not able to grow hair with dermal papilla (DP) cells.
But here in the new study by Jahoda and Christiano, they have clearly grown de novo hair follicles using dermal papilla cells. Please read:
With all due respect, you should admit you are wrong about the following:
Jahoda’s so-called “lack of experience and skills”
That this new Jahoda-Christiano study is not a major breakthrough, and
That this new study has (or has not, according to you) shown that neogenic human hair follicles can be grown using DP cells
[quote]So then you agree with me that while Aderans was trying to grow de-novo hair and failed, Jahoda has finally been the first to succeed in growing new hair?
That is what i consider “a breakthrough”.
[postedby]Originally Posted by James Bond[/postedby]
Jahoda’s 2013 experiment was not the first time new follicles were grown in human skin. This prize probably goes to Cooley in 1996, although there’s an outside possibility the hairs grew from stimulated existing follicles. Jahoda’s 1999 transgender experiment probably resulted in brand new follicles, but he did not use cell implants. He used a tissue implants. Barrow’s 2001 cell implant experiment definitively resulted in de novo follicles growing in the scalp of a human patient.
Jahoda’s 2013 experiment used an old 3D culturing technique invented in 1907 called hanging drop culture. This allows the cells to pool in the bottom of a drop, which allows them to touch each other and creates a richer signaling environment than laying the cells flat in a petri dish where they quickly spread apart.
Unfortunately, Jahoha’s drop culture resulted in follicles that grew extremely small thin hairs because the implanted cultured cells only expressed for 22% of the genes found in healthy DP cells. So while it was helpful, it was not nearly helpful enough.
It might be interesting to start the cells in 3D drops, and then place them into Barrows polymer matrices before targeting them at the dermal-epidermal junction. This could allow the cells to continue on in a 3D environment after being placed in the body. But for the most part, it’s going to require the addition of growth factors not previously used in human hair growth experiments.
Is anyone trying this yet?
[quote]
I think you’re confusing the “clumping problem” (not really a problem) and “3D matrices” with 3D cell culture.
From my viewpoint, these are completely different things and shouldn’t be all confused and “clumped” together as you’re doing![/quote]
I agree they are somewhat different methods, but they are both geared at accomplishing the same means–keeping the cells in close proximity so they can signal each other.
The discovery that the cells need to clump when cultured is not new. Jahoda discovered this many year ago when performing experiments in rodents.
It’s important to keep in mind, researchers didn’t discover you could stimulate existing follicles until 2003. So when ARI first formed in 2002, they were 100% geared toward neogenesis, because that’s what Barrows had previously had success at when working at BioAmide. Aderans’ goal was to keep the cells together in a 3D matrix environment so that they would remain in close proximity inside a tissue signaling environment (the human body).
I agree with that, but pay attention to what you just said, “get the cells to cling together.” Similarly, Jahoda’s 2013 experiment used a technique first discovered in 1907 that causes the cells to cling together in order to produce a richer signaling environment than culturing the cells in 2D.
This is true. But keep in mind, the first years of their research were geared 100% toward neogenesis. It’s only after McElwee discovered stimulation was possible that Aderans switched focus and started pursuing stimulation techniques. Unfortunately, it appeared simpler at the outset, but most likely turned out to be a mistake.
This is different, but it’s not completely different. The goal of both methods is to keep the cells in close proximity to allow them to communicate with each other. Each has it’s own merits and weaknesses, as I indicated when I proposed combining the two techniques.
I’m not claiming Barrows used the exact same technique to produce the exact same result. I’m claiming he used a similar concept to produce an even better result, and he did this over a decade before Jahoda.
I think what many here don’t realize is Jahoda is simply using off-the-shelve components and ideas. As I have stated before, nothing he has done here is novel. People keep arguing that it’s novel because he grew partial follicles in human skin. I assure you that’s not novel. They also argue it’s novel because he used drop culturing techniques. As you can see in the following study, although it’s not his invention, he did this previously in 2010. I think a similar technique was done as early as 2003.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1600-0625.2009.01007.x/full
Jahoda’s article is intended to hype his research in the media and generate notoriety and research funding. Look, I’m glad he’s doing this research, because too little is currently being done. I’m just trying to point out, there is a lot of hype surrounding this study, and as far as I’m concerned, I’ve seen everything that’s being done in this study done before.
You are most likely familiar with his work, as he is the lead scientist at Replicel. So far, his treatment has only resulted in an average of 6% consistency with the best responder getting 19%.
The reason why I say DS cells are a better cell type is because they have a better gene expression profile than DP cells. This is why 100% of Jahoda’s DS implants resulted in hair growth in his wife’s arm, and none of his DP implants grew hair.
What’s missing between a us and a cure? These blasted cell culturing techniques. They are getting better with time, but the process has so far proven to be agonizingly slow.
[quote]
With all due respect, you should admit you are wrong about the following:
Jahoda’s so-called “lack of experience and skills”
That this new Jahoda-Christiano study is not a major breakthrough, and
That this new study has (or has not, according to you) shown that neogenic human hair follicles can be grown using DP cells[/quote]
Jahoda himself admits finding a cure will require more skills than he has. This is not a new concept in research, and certain not new to hair multiplication research, which is why ARI had a molecule research division that was separate from it’s materials and cell delivery division.
Drop culture techniques were first invented in 1907, and they were used in embryonic stem cell culture as early as 1991.
Barrows grew hair in a human patient’s scalp using DP cells in 2001. This research was presented at a conference in Switzerland.
I’m simply posting facts that anybody can freely google. I’m not sure why you are getting so mad at me about this stuff.
[quote]James Bond,
Yes we can use the drop technique to culture DS cells, but I expect the private sector has already been there, done that, and it did not prove to be enough.
Jahoda showed the cells are immune privleged by implanting his and another person’s DS cells into his wife’s arm. 100% of the implant sites grew hair, and none of them showed any sign of inflammation or immune rejection.
I think your idea would work. Pay people enough money, and they will donate all the hair you need. On the more gruesome side, you could use an organ donor. In that case, you might not even need to culture the cells. Just do direct DS tissue implants.
The difference in Jahoda’s transgender transplant and his 2013 experiment is that the cells were cultured. That is what makes this unique… he has found a way of potentially making hundreds/thousands of hairs from just a few. The transplantation experiment did not offer that kind of hope.
I think you are deliberately trying not to acknowledge that.
[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by James Bond[/postedby]
So then you agree with me that while Aderans was trying to grow de-novo hair and failed, Jahoda has finally been the first to succeed in growing new hair?
That is what i consider “a breakthrough”.
[postedby]Originally Posted by James Bond[/postedby]
Jahoda’s 2013 experiment was not the first time new follicles were grown in human skin. This prize probably goes to Cooley in 1996, although there’s an outside possibility the hairs grew from stimulated existing follicles. Jahoda’s 1999 transgender experiment probably resulted in brand new follicles, but he did not use cell implants. He used a tissue implants. Barrow’s 2001 cell implant experiment definitively resulted in de novo follicles growing in the scalp of a human patient.
Jahoda’s 2013 experiment used an old 3D culturing technique invented in 1907 called hanging drop culture. This allows the cells to pool in the bottom of a drop, which allows them to touch each other and creates a richer signaling environment than laying the cells flat in a petri dish where they quickly spread apart.
Unfortunately, Jahoha’s drop culture resulted in follicles that grew extremely small thin hairs because the implanted cultured cells only expressed for 22% of the genes found in healthy DP cells. So while it was helpful, it was not nearly helpful enough.
It might be interesting to start the cells in 3D drops, and then place them into Barrows polymer matrices before targeting them at the dermal-epidermal junction. This could allow the cells to continue on in a 3D environment after being placed in the body. But for the most part, it’s going to require the addition of growth factors not previously used in human hair growth experiments.[/quote]
| Home | News | Find a Doctor | Ask a Question | Terms of Use & Privacy |
This is an advertising site for paid advertisers to showcase successful hair restoration results only. It is not the mandate of this site to engage in the discussion of failed, unsuccessful procedures, lawsuits, litigations, refunds or complaint cases. Surgical hair restoration procedures carry risks. Please do thorough research, consult your own physician and investigate a doctor's background carefully before making a decision. By proceeding to use our site, you agree to abide by our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy at http://hairsite.com/terms-of-use/ where you can also find a list of HairSite's sponsoring physicians.